IN RE HAINES MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MITCHELL ROBERT HAINES
and CARLY EILEEN HAINES, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
September 3, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290252
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000592-NA
ROBERT A. HAINES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
AMBER YVONNE HAINES,
Respondent.
In the Matter of MITCHELL ROBERT HAINES
and CARLY EILEEN HAINES, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 290349
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2007-000592-NA
AMBER YVONNE HAINES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROBERT A. HAINES,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Saad, C.J., and Whitbeck and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal from a circuit court order that
terminated their parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g),
and (j). We affirm.
Respondents argue that the evidence did not support termination of their parental rights,
but both respondents incorrectly assert that termination was ordered under § 19b(3)(c)(ii), and
neither respondent addresses § 19b(3)(j). Because only one statutory ground for termination is
necessary and respondents have not challenged the trial court’s reliance on § 19b(3)(j), this Court
need not examine their challenges to the other statutory grounds. In re Huisman, 230 Mich App
372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds, In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 353 n 10; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Moreover, respondents’ claim that they were not given a
reasonable opportunity to change is without merit. The court gave them at least two “last”
chances, and respondents wasted their opportunities. At a permanency planning hearing in July
2008, the caseworker recommended termination of respondents’ parental rights but agreed to
give them “one last chance to be in compliance.” The trial court agreed and emphasized to both
respondents the importance of complying with drug testing. The court allowed visitation to
continue. Thereafter, on September 24, 2008, the date scheduled for the termination hearing, the
parties advised the court that they were in agreement to give respondents an additional few
months to comply. The trial court again emphasized the importance of complying with drug
screens. The court informed respondents that if they could not contact petitioner, they should
contact their attorneys, who could contact the court and the court would address the situation.
Respondents continued their pattern of noncompliance with drug testing and failing to visit. In
light of respondents’ failure to change their behavior despite the warnings and opportunities
provided by the court over the years this matter was before the trial court, the court did not
clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and
convincing evidence.
Respondent Amber Haines also asserts that termination of her parental rights was not in
the children’s best interests, but she does not advance any argument on that point in her brief. “It
is axiomatic that where a party fails to brief the merits of an allegation of error, the issue is
deemed abandoned by this Court.” Prince v MacDonald, 237 Mich App 186, 197; 602 NW2d
834 (1999).
Respondent Robert Haines additionally argues that the trial court improperly relied on
Dr. Ryan’s psychological report, contrary to MRE 702. However, he fails to recognize that
MRE 702 and other rules of evidence do not apply in these circumstances. MCR 3.977(G)(2),
which addresses proceedings in which termination of parental rights is sought, states:
The Michigan Rules of Evidence do not apply, other than those with
respect to privileges, except to the extent such privileges are abrogated by MCL
722.631. At the hearing all relevant and material evidence, including oral and
written reports, may be received by the court and may be relied upon to the extent
of its probative value. The parties must be afforded an opportunity to examine
-2-
and controvert written reports so received and shall be allowed to cross-examine
individuals who made the reports when those individuals are reasonably available.
Respondent does not argue that he sought and was denied an opportunity to cross-examine Dr.
Ryan. His contention that the trial court’s reliance on the report requires reversal of the order
termination parental rights is without merit.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
